Posted tagged ‘Middle East’

Obama Admin Engaged in Secret Talks to Pay Iran

March 23, 2016

Obama Admin Engaged in Secret Talks to Pay Iran Nearly $2 Billion Officials admit delays in informing Congress, say more payments to come

BY:
March 23, 2016 5:00 am

Source: Obama Admin Engaged in Secret Talks to Pay Iran

The Obama administration has spent three years engaged in secret talks with Iran that resulted in the payment of nearly $2 billion in taxpayer funds to the Islamic Republic, with more payouts likely to come in the future, according to a recent letter issued by the State Department and obtained exclusively by the Washington Free Beacon.

The administration’s disclosure came in response to an inquiry launched in January by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.), who was seeking further information about the Obama administration’s payment of $1.7 billion in taxpayer funds to Iran, which many viewed as a “ransom payment” for Iran’s release that month of several U.S. hostages.

The administration’s official response to Pompeo was sent earlier this week, just days after a Free Beacon report detailing a months-long State Department effort to stall the lawmaker’s inquiry.

“We apologize for the delay in responding,” Julia Frifield, an assistant secretary for legislative affairs, states in the letter’s opening.

Obama administration officials first began talks to settle a number of outstanding legal claims leveled against the United States by Iran in 2014. The administration predicts that more taxpayer-funded payments are likely to be granted to the Islamic Republic in the future, according to the letter.

Frifield in her letter goes on to defend the $1.7 billion payment to Iran and discloses that the administration is open to providing Tehran with more money if it is willing to settle these decades-old legal disputes with the United States.

“We are confident that this was a good settlement for the American taxpayer,” the State Department said.

Iran’s legal row with the United States surrounds the breakdown of a massive arms deal that was nixed in the aftermath of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, which resulted in the capture of the U.S. embassy and American personnel stationed there.

Many of these claims remain unsettled and are still being litigated by the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal at the Hague.

The Obama administration has been working behind the scenes since at least 2014 to reach settlement agreements with Iran to avoid court decisions, according to the letter, which identifies at least two separate discussions held in June 2014 and January 2015.

The administration anticipates that more settlements will come, meaning that the United States will likely be forced to pay Iran via a taxpayer legal fund operated by the Treasury Department.

“The United States is continuing to vigorously litigate these claims at the Tribunal, but is also open to discussing further settlements of claims with Iran, as we have done throughout the life of the Tribunal, with the aim of resolving them in furtherance of U.S. interests,” the letter states.

Iran’s “fact-intensive claims involve over 1,000 separate contracts between Iran and the United States,” according to the letter, which explains that January’s $1.7 billion payment settled just one of many outstanding disputes.

The Obama administration fails to directly address Pompeo’s questions seeking to determine if the legal settlement was finalized as part of an incentive package meant to motivate Tehran to free imprisoned Americans.

“It would not be in the interest of the United States to discuss further details of the settlement of these claims in an unclassified letter due to the ongoing litigation at the Tribunal,” the State Department writes. “However, we would be prepared to provide a closed briefing on such issues if it would be useful to there.”

“When Iran releases American hostages, and then, on that same day, President Obama announces he is paying Iran $1.7 billion, Congress of course has to ask the hard questions,” said one source familiar with the investigation. “And when the Obama administration admits that over $1 billion in taxpayer money is going to the Iranian regime, Congress is obligated to respond. The State Department has ducked and dodged–providing a history lesson on international tribunals, focused on actions decades ago, instead of addressing dangerous misdeeds that were potentially just committed. That is suspicious.”

Under the specific terms of January’s settlement, Iran was to be paid a $400 million balance and an additional $1.3 billion in interest from a taxpayer fund maintained by the Treasury Department, a State Department official confirmed to the Free Beacon at the time.

That settlement—along with additional settlements—was reached outside of the recently implemented nuclear deal and is separate from the $150 billion in unfrozen cash assets the United States is obligated to give to Iran under that agreement, the official said.

The $1.7 billion payment was announced just prior to the release of five U.S. prisoners who had been held in Iran, sparking accusations that the deal is tantamount to a ransom payment

Israel’s Christian Minority

March 20, 2016

Israel’s Christian Minority, Gatestone InstituteShadi Khalloul, March 20, 2016

♦ Christians in Israel, as well as all other minorities, understand today that serving in the Israeli military is essential. Many Christians and other minorities in Israel share the same fears: they understand that in this region, Israel is the only island of safety that allows them freedom and democratic rights.

♦ Christians and other minorities in Israel prosper and grow, while in other countries in the Middle East, including the Palestinian Authority, they suffer heavily from the Islamic movement and persecution — until forced to disappear.

♦ Contrary to propaganda, there is no “Apartheid” of any kind in Israel, and no roads on which only Jews may travel.

♦ In Israel, members of the Christian and Muslim minorities fill all types of high positions — just as any Jewish Israeli who wishes to have a successful career. There is the Maronite Christian Supreme Court Judge, Salim Jubran.

♦ Widely discussed in the region is how the Europeans secretly want Israel wiped out, too, and are hoping that their new laws, combined with old Arab violence, will do the trick.

Last year, Israel recognized the existence of a group of Christians — “Arameans” — within its borders; an act that no Arab or Muslim nation from the Middle East has ever done or would ever do. Israel recognized a distinct religious and ethnic group: the indigenous people of the ancient Fertile Crescent.

Their language, Aramaic, was the language spoken by Jesus centuries before Islam came to the region.

Israel not only supports and gives Christians and other minorities — Druze, Muslims, Baha’i, everyone — full civil rights, freedom and legal rights to exist peacefully and practice their faith as they wish, but also to develop themselves as a minority with all the implications of differences in culture. Arabs, for instance, are welcomed into the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), but are not, as opposed to Jews, required to serve. Israel’s founding Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, humanely did not want Arabs to feel as if they were obliged fight their “brothers.”

In Israel, members of the Christian and Muslim minorities fill all types of high positions — just as any Jewish Israeli who wishes to have a successful career. There is the Maronite Christian Supreme Court Judge, Salim Jubran.

Contrary to propaganda, there is no “Apartheid” of any kind, and no roads on which only Jews may travel. Those roads are in Saudi Arabia, which has real Apartheid roads, since only Muslims may travel to Mecca.

Israel does this, moreover, in a neighborhood where most of its neighbors — often the most brutal enemies of humanity — wish Israel were wiped out and often do their utmost to make this wish come true. Sadly, many Europeans join in. Everyone has seen the recent vicious attempts by the European Union to snuff out Israel economically by labeling goods made in disputed territories. This requirement, made of no other country with a disputed border actually hinders any prospects for peace that working together is meant to bring about.

These Europeans are not fooling anyone. Their slyly sadistic, self-righteous “punishments” meant for Israel will only throw thousands of Palestinians out of well-paying, badly-needed work; these diktats also drive many newly out-of-work Palestinians to the employment bureau of last resort: Islamic extremism and terrorism. Ironically, these Europeans, to satisfy their wish to hurt Jews by pretending to help Palestinians, are actually seeding a new crop of terrorists who will later come to Europe and show them what they think of such hypocrites.

Widely discussed in the region is how the Europeans secretly want Israel wiped out, too, and are hoping that their new laws, combined with old Arab violence, will do the trick. That way, the Europeans can pretend to themselves that they had “nothing to do with it.” These Europeans need to know they are not fooling anyone.

Israel, meanwhile, despite having to deal with the European and American fronts as well as often genocidal Muslim threats, continues actively to strengthen its minority communities through a variety of state-sponsored programs. Among them is a five-year plan to develop Israeli Arab and other minority communities adopted by the government on December 30, 2015, at cost of 15 billion shekels [roughly $4 billion]. Social Equality Minister Gila Gamliel, of the Likud Party is in charge of implementing the plan. Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is unjustly demonized, has for the last several years operated the “Authority for the Economic Development of the Arab, Druze and Circassian Sectors.” It is headed by an Arab Muslim, Aiman Saif, who controls a sizeable budget of 7 billion shekels [roughly $1.8 billion], which has mostly gone to different Arab cities and villages to develop modern infrastructure, industrial zones, employment opportunities, education and other elements. The rest was allocated to helping Christian villages in the Galilee.

Arabs have their own section in the Ministry of Education, headed by an Arab Muslim, Abdalla Khateeb, who is also in charge of a sizeable budget of 900 million shekels [$230 million].

Christians, as well as all other minorities, understand today that serving in the Israeli military is essential for their integration in Israel. Many Christians and other minorities in Israel share the same fears: they increasingly understand that in this region, Israel is the only island of safety that allows them freedom and democratic rights. The Muslim Arab community in Israel, as well as the Christian and other Arabic-speaking communities, see the tragic destiny of their brothers in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and other Arab countries. Muslims killing Muslims; fanatical Muslim groups killing Christians, uprooting them, slitting their throats, burning them alive, drowning them in cages and of course crucifying them, even little children. Israel’s minorities are very aware of this. They also cannot understand why no one is demonizing those villains. They fear that this devastation will spread, first to the holy land of Israel, and then to Europe.

This fear is one of the reasons there have been increasing numbers of Christians applying to serve in the IDF: 30% recruitment on a voluntary basis; while in general Jewish society, the number stands for 57% on an obligatory basis. Today there are even more than 1000 Muslim Arabs serving in the IDF.

We all know the danger of these fanatic Islamic jihadist groups such as Hamas groups, and feel ever more committed to protect this lone pluralistic state.

The community to which this author belongs, Aramean Christians, is of Aramean-Phoenician ethnic roots and language, and was originally based in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Over the 1400 years following the Islamic conquest, Aramean Christians were forced to switch to speaking Arabic, and more recently to flee their homes in Syria and Iraq. They have no status in Arab and Islamic states, most ruled according to Islamic sharia law. Aramean Christians also have no status in the Palestinian Authority, which now rules Judea and Samaria.

We are aware of some Christian groups, such as Sabeel, Kairos Palestine and others under the thumb of the Palestinian Authority, who still feel the need to pay lip-service to the Muslim Arabian lords who have conquered them.

Jerusalem is open to everyone. But it has not always been, especially under the jurisdiction of Jordan, until 1967. Not only were Jews not allowed in, but 38,000 Jewish gravestones were taken from the Mount of Olives cemetery and used as building materials and flooring for Jordan’s latrines.

Muslim Arab members of Israel’s Knesset [parliament] reject the right of Christians to preserve their unique heritage. On February 5, 2014, Knesset member Haneen Zoabi of the United Arab List party threatened the Israeli Christian representatives who lobbied in the Knesset Employment Committee in favor of a law that would add Christian representatives to a committee on employment equality in the Economy Ministry. Zoabi rejected their declaration that they were a separate Aramean Christian ethnicity. She insisted on forcing upon them an Arab and Palestinian identity. This identification was of course, as false as if we Christians had insisted that Muslim Arabs call themselves Native Americans. The law passed despite the efforts of Zoabi and her colleagues, due to a coalition of Knesset members — with vast majority of Jewish MKs voting in favor of it.

This incident illustrates how some of Israel’s Muslim Arabs, while asking their Jewish neighbors for help in preserve their own Muslim-Arab heritage, prohibit other ethnic minorities these same rights.

Instead, they try to impose Arabization and Palestinization by threats and by force. In September 2014, for instance, an Aramean Christian woman, IDF Captain Areen Shaabi, was stalked by Arab Muslim activists in Nazareth. She was threatened with shouts of “Allahu Akbar” [“Allah is Greater!”], and at night her car tires were slashed.

IDF Major Ehab Shlayan, an Aramean Christian in Nazareth and the founder of the Christian Recruitment Forum, awoke on the morning of August 2015 to find that a Palestinian flag had been put in front of his door during the night. On Christmas Eve, December 24, 2014, thirty Muslims throwing stones and glass bottles attacked a Christian soldier, 19-year-old Majd Rawashdi, and his home.

1518IDF Major Ehab Shlayan (far left), is an Aramean Christian from Nazareth and founder of the Christian Recruitment Forum, which encourages Israeli Aramean Christians to serve in the military. Muslim Arab Knesset member Haneen Zoabi (right) recently threatened Israeli Christian representatives, rejecting their declaration that they were a separate Aramean Christian ethnicity and insisting on forcing upon them an Arab and Palestinian identity.

All this is hypocrisy at the highest levels, mixed with racism.

In an official Christmas greeting to Israel’s Christians on December 24, 2012, Prime Minister Netanyahu said:

“Israel’s minorities, including over one million citizens who are Arabs, always have full civil rights. Israel’s government will never tolerate discrimination against women. Israel’s Christian population will always be free to practice their faith. This is the only place in the Middle East where Christians are fully free to practice their faith. They don’t have to fear; they don’t have to flee. At a time when Christians are under siege in so many places, in so many lands in the Middle East, I am proud that in Israel Christians are free to practice their faith, and that there is a thriving Christian community in Israel.”

Christians and other minorities in Israel prosper and grow, while in other countries in the Middle East, including the Palestinian Authority, they suffer heavily from the Islamic movement and persecution — until forced to disappear.

Jordanian Parliament Bans Selling, Renting Property to Israelis

March 20, 2016

Jordanian Parliament Bans Selling, Renting Property to Israelis

By Pamela Geller on March 19, 2016

Source: Jordanian Parliament Bans Selling, Renting Property to Israelis | Pamela Geller

Love your neighbors .

A Palestinian tries to dodge rubber coated bullets during clashes with Israeli troops near Ramallah, West Bank, Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2015. A pair of Palestinian men boarded a bus in Jerusalem and began shooting and stabbing passengers, while another assailant rammed a car into a bus station before stabbing bystanders, in near-simultaneous attacks Tuesday that escalated a monthlong wave of violence. Three Israelis and two attackers were killed. (AP Photo/Majdi Mohammed)

These are the “moderates.” Now remember that the “moderates” are, contrary to media myth, actually a small minority in a sea of “extremists” who want Israel destroyed and all the Jews massacred.

“Jordanian Parliament Bans Selling, Renting Property to Israelis,” by Ali Waked, Breitbart, March 17, 2016 (thanks to Christian):

JAFFA, Israel – Jordan’s parliament has banned selling or renting property in the Petra area to Israelis following a heated plenary debate.

Lawmakers defied calls to strike down the bill as unlawful because Israel doesn’t have a similar law and approved a regulation that allows the rental of property and land to people of all nationalities except Israel.

“Their claim of bilateralism is void because Israel isn’t a legal entity,” the bill’s sponsors told the Jordanian media. “It is a land-grabbing entity.”

They noted that Israelis might try to bypass the regulation by using non-Israeli straw men or registering their companies in Jordan, the country’s semi-official Al Dustour newspaper wrote, adding that the representatives of the Jordanian people reject normalization with Israel and insist that Palestinian land remain Palestinian.

Some MPs said the bill was necessary because “The Jews claim ownership of Petra and are likely to encroach on the area to fulfill their schemes. We are for encouraging investment, but not at the expense of the holiness of the land. If we let Jews purchase land, we will de facto recognize Israel’s existence.”

Israel has never made any territorial claims on Petra.

In January, Breitbart Jerusalem reported that Jordanian MPs are drafting a bill that would ban Israelis from purchasing land in Jordan.

“Jordan does not allow Israeli ownership of lands and property anywhere in the country,” declared Mouein al-Sayeg, director of the government’s Lands Administration.

“The Jordanian people fear an Israeli takeover of state lands,” al Sayej said. “These concerns are unwarranted and have been addressed by the law.”

“The lands administration monitors the nationality of potential buyers very closely,” he added.

“Foreign buyers are required to reveal their identity, so that we can prevent undesired nationalities from gaining a foothold in our property market.”

Jordan and Israel normalized relations more than two decades ago, but public opinion in the kingdom – more than a half of whose population is of Palestinian extraction – is hostile to the Jewish state.

Obama Admin Stalling Investigation Into Iran ‘Ransom Payment’

March 18, 2016

Obama Admin Stalling Investigation Into U.S. ‘Ransom Payment’ to Iran Congress in dark as admin ignores questions about taxpayer money for Tehran

BY:
March 17, 2016 11:00 am

Source: Obama Admin Stalling Investigation Into Iran ‘Ransom Payment’

The Obama administration is being accused of stalling a congressional investigation into a purported $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded “ransom payment” to Iran in exchange for the release of several U.S. prisoners, according to documents and information provided to the Washington Free Beacon by sources familiar with the matter.

The administration initially came under fire from congressional critics in January, when it was announced that the United States had settled a longstanding legal dispute with Iran over the breakdown in a decades-old arms sale.

Under the terms of the settlement, Iran was to be paid a $400 million balance and an additional $1.3 billion in interest from a taxpayer fund maintained by the Treasury Department, a State Department official confirmed to the Free Beacon in January.

The settlement was reached outside of the recently implemented nuclear deal and is separate from the $150 billion in unfrozen cash assets the United States is obligated to give to Iran under that agreement, the official said.

The $1.7 billion payment was announced just prior to the release of five U.S. prisoners who had been held in Iran, leading to accusations that the deal is tantamount to a ransom payment. Iranian officials, at the time, independently described the transaction as a form of ransom.

While the Obama administration immediately denied that the two issues were linked, lawmakers remained skeptical and pushed for more answers.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) reached out to Secretary of State John Kerry on Jan. 21 to outline his concerns and request further disclosures about what he called a “ransom payment” to Iran, according to a letter sent by the lawmaker and obtained by the Free Beacon.

The State Department has not responded and is said to have ignored multiple follow-up requests from Pompeo’s office, according to sources familiar with the situation.

When asked Thursday whether a response is in the works, a State Department official told the Free Beacon, “We take seriously all correspondence from Congress and respond accordingly.”

The administration’s delay is causing frustration on Capitol Hill and prompting accusations that the State Department is stalling congressional efforts to investigate how the settlement with Iran was reached.

“The State Department likes to drag its feet on responding to Congress, particularly on issues related to the Iran nuclear deal,” one source familiar with the situation said. “This stonewalling is reminiscent of recent testimony by a senior Department of Homeland Security official who would not answer members’ questions on refugees and visas.”

“Congress is only trying to do its job of holding President Obama accountable and ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely,” the source added. “The Obama administration’s refusal to answer legitimate questions leaves the American people to wonder what they are hiding.”

In Pompeo’s case, the State Department initially confirmed its receipt of the letter in January but did not provide information as to when officials might respond. The administration subsequently failed to respond to further requests for a response issued over the following months, sources said.

Pompeo’s investigation surrounds “the timing and details” of the cash transfer to Iran of $1.7 billion, according to his letter.

The administration’s behavior “indicates it might be a ransom payment and it is likely interpreted as such by our adversaries,” he wrote. “We may be seeing a dangerous precedent in action as three Americans, reportedly kidnapped by Iranian-backed Shia militias in Baghdad, remain missing.”

“Many find this timing suspicious,” he said. “I fear this payment is the latest incident that is establishing a dangerous precedent that will lead to more Americans being captured abroad.”

The lawmaker sought further information on “the relationship” between the $1.7 billion settlement and the release of the five American prisoners. He also wants to determine whether the lawsuit was ever discussed in “conversations with the Iranians about the release of American hostages.”

“Did you secure an assurance from the Iranians that they will not use this $1.7 billion to fund terrorism?” he asked.

Pompeo goes on to request details about additional legal claims by Iran, asking: “How much money does Iran assert we still owe them? How many more billions can we expect the Obama administration to hand to the Ayatollah?”

Other sources familiar with the matter also chastised the administration for dragging its feet.

“This is one of the main ways the Obama administration hides its Iran foreign policy,” said one foreign policy consultant who works intimately with Congress on the Iran portfolio. “Sometimes they over-classify information to keep it secret, sometimes they mislead lawmakers about their intentions, but a lot of the time they engage in this kind of sandbagging.”

“By the time anyone gets any answers, whatever catastrophic policy they were hiding has become the new normal,” the source said.

ISIS Massacre of Christians Not “Genocide,” Obama Administration Insists

March 17, 2016

ISIS Massacre of Christians Not “Genocide,” Obama Administration Insists

by Raymond Ibrahim March 17, 2016 at 4:30 am

Source: ISIS Massacre of Christians Not “Genocide,” Obama Administration Insists

 

  • According to the Obama administration, the Islamic State is committing genocide against certain religious minority groups — excluding Christian minorities. But ISIS is on record saying that its eradication of Christians is due to their religious identity.
  • The Obama administration’s rejection of the word “genocide” fits a familiar pattern.
  • When asked about the plight of Christians under ISIS, Colonel Steve Warren said “We’ve seen no specific evidence of a specific targeting toward Christians.”
  • Although Christians number 10% of Syria’s population, only 2% of refugees accepted into the U.S. from there are Christian. (The majority — almost 98% — are Sunni Muslims, the same sect to which ISIS belongs and thus are not persecuted.)

According to the Obama administration, the Islamic State is committing genocide against certain religious minority groups — excluding Christian minorities. During a February 29 press briefing, White House spokesman Josh Earnest was asked: “Is the Islamic State carrying out a campaign of genocide against Syria’s Christians?” He replied:

Well, we have long expressed our concerns with the tendency of — well, not a tendency — a tactic employed by ISIL to slaughter religious minorities in Iraq and in Syria. You’ll recall at the very beginning of the military campaign against ISIL that some of the first actions that were ordered by President Obama, by the United States military, were to protect Yazidi religious minorities that were essentially cornered on Mt. Sinjar by ISIL fighters. We took those strikes to clear a path so that those religious minorities could be rescued.

Due to the obvious equivocation — it is unclear how Obama’s efforts “to protect Yazidi religious minorities” answers a question about persecuted Christians — the question was repeated: “But you’re not prepared to use the word ‘genocide’ yet in the situation [regarding Christians]?”

Earnest’s response:

My understanding is the use of that word involves a very specific legal determination that has at this point not been reached.

What is this “very specific legal determination” that encompasses Yazidis but excludes Christians? The Islamic State’s treatment of Christians would seem to fit under the UN’s definition of “genocide“:

Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;…

ISIS is guilty of “killing members of the [Christian] group” and causing them “serious bodily or mental harm.” Although two separate videotaped mass executions (one of 21 Egyptian Christians and another of 30 Ethiopian Christians) were reported by the mainstream media, accounts of torture, rape, mutilation, crucifixion, and massacres of Christians are regularly reported on Arabic and alternate media.

The Islamic State has also been responsible for “deliberately inflicting on the group [Christians] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” ISIS has placed these “conditions of life” — more literally known in Islamic doctrine as the “Conditions of Omar” — on Christians. They included a number of humiliations and debilitations — from the suppression of Christian worship to the extortion of money (jizya) — a “protection” tax designed to “encourage” Christians to convert to Islam or flee.

ISIS seems further committed to expunging all physical traces of Christianity in the areas it conquers. It has demolished dozens of ancient churches; at least 400 churches in Syria have been destroyed since the war, as well as countless statues and crucifixes. ISIS has also desecrated Christian cemeteries and ordered the University of Mosul to burn all books written by Christians and decreed that all schools in Mosul and the Nineveh Plain that bore Christian names (some since the 1700s) be changed.

Then there are the numbers. In Iraq, Christians, who totaled 1.4 million in 2003, are now down to about 300,000. In Syria, Christians, who totaled 1.25 million in 2011, are now down to about 500,000.

The Syriac Orthodox Church of St. Ephrem in Mosul, Iraq, before it was captured by the Islamic State (left), and after.

Finally, ISIS is on record saying that its eradication of Christians is due to their religious identity.

Due to all these indicators, many groups and rights activists believe that ISIS’s treatment of Christians “fits the definition of ethnic cleansing,” in the words of the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial. A European Parliament resolution adopted in April 2015 stated that “Christians are the most persecuted religious group. … according to data the number of Christians killed every year is more than 150,000.”

Even so, the Obama administration’s rejection of the word “genocide” fits a familiar pattern:

  • When asked about the plight of Christians under ISIS, Colonel Steve Warren said “We’ve seen no specific evidence of a specific targeting toward Christians.”
  • Although Christians number 10% of Syria’s population, only 2% of refugees accepted into the U.S. from there are Christian. (The majority of refugees — almost 98% — are Sunni Muslims, the same sect to which ISIS belongs and thus are not persecuted.)
  • When inviting scores of Muslim representatives, the State Department has repeatedly denied visas to solitary Christian representatives.
  • When a few persecuted Iraqi Christians crossed the border into the U.S., they were thrown in prison for several months and then sent back to the war zone.
  • When persecuted Coptic Christians planned on joining Egypt’s anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution of 2013, the Obama administration, in the person of Ambassador Anne Patterson, counseled them not to.
  • When persecuted Iraqi and Syrian Christians asked for arms to join the opposition fighting ISIS, D.C. refused.

Raymond Ibrahim, author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War in Christians (a Gatestone Publication, published by Regnery, April 2013), is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Rivlin Tells Putin Iran Must Stay Off Syrian – Israeli Border

March 17, 2016

Rivlin Tells Putin Iran Must Stay Off Syrian – Israeli Border

By: David Israel Published: March 17th, 2016

Source: The Jewish Press » » Rivlin Tells Putin Iran Must Stay Off Syrian – Israeli Border

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin (L) meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Photo by Mark Neyman/GPO

Israeli Presidents very rarely find themselves in a position to decide policy or negotiate with foreign powers — their role as heads of state is similar to that of the British monarchs, a symbol of government rather than the real thing. But on Wednesday President Reuven Rivlin found himself in the unexpected position of delivering a critical message to the leader of the second largest world power, President Vladimir Putin, and charting the start of a new relationship between Israel and Russia over Syria.

As the world discovered on Monday this week, President Putin announced that the war in Syria had been won and he was pulling the bulk of the Russian military contingency from the battlefield. It was a brilliant move on the part of the Russian leader, whose main achievement since the start of his involvement in Syria had been to wipe out the Western- and Saudi-funded rebels, leaving President Bashar al-Assad as the only viable alternative to the ISIS hordes. He outmaneuvered President Obama by several steps, and left Middle East leaders gasping with astonishment. This included Israel’s leadership. In fact, the original message President Rivlin was asked to deliver to Putin on his pre-scheduled state Visit Wednesday, was a call to coordinate the activities of the IDF and the Russian army in the Syrian Golan heights, along Israel’s north-eastern border.

On Monday night that message had to be scrapped and a completely new policy had to be charted on the spot, in advance of the Wednesday meeting in the Kremlin. “I felt that I was thrown into battle as the envoy of the prime minister, the defense minister and the chief of staff,” Rivlin related. His mission, outlined in a hurry on Monday night, was to draw Israel’s lines in the sand as far as the post-Russian Syrian arena was concerned.

In the end, those lines in the sand were not so hard to figure out, and Rivlin delivered the message succinctly: there will be no entry of Iranian forces into the Syrian Golan heights; there will be no transfer of advanced Russian weapons and technology into the hands of Hezbollah; there will be no Israeli retreat from the Golan heights. Those are the issues over which Israel, if pushed, would go to war.

According to reports in Israel’s media, Putin’s response was friendly and understanding — at least on the surface. He repeated his commitment to Israel’s security, if only, he joked, because so many Russians live and visit there. Putin then inquired about the steps Israel is prepared to take to advance peace with the Palestinian Arabs and President Rivlin responded with the list of efforts and gestures Israel has made since 1993 to reach peace, and promised that—short of national suicide—Israel would continue to try everything in its power to reach peace.

There will be a meeting between Putin and Prime Minister Netanyahu soon, but until then, over in Jerusalem, they appreciated Rivlin’s unscheduled relief pitching.

Analysis: UN, State Dept. Condemn Israel for Legal Land Acquisition Near Jericho

March 17, 2016

As of 1979, Israel has been settling in Judea and Samaria on “State land.” The term was coined by then Attorney General Aharon Barak.

By: JNi.Media Published: March 16th, 2016

Source: The Jewish Press » » Analysis: UN, State Dept. Condemn Israel for Legal Land Acquisition Near Jericho

Vered Yeriho, the Israeli moshav near the 580 acres in question. / Wikipedia commons

 

On Tuesday, Israel’s Army Radio reported, based largely on a Peace Now report, that the Israeli government had seized 580 acres (less than one square mile) of land in Judea near the Dead Sea and Jericho. The coordinated publicity by Israel’s most leftwing radio station — the IDF’s own, and the most dedicated enemy of Jewish life in Judea and Samaria — Peace Now, quickly generated the expected results:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said Israel must reverse its “confiscation” of land, because it is “an impediment to the two-state solution.” And UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric added that “Such actions appear to point toward an increase in settlement activities and demonstrate that Israel is continuing to push forward in the consolidation of its control of the West Bank,” and “Settlements are illegal under international law and the secretary-general urges the government of Israel to halt and reverse such actions in the interest of a just and comprehensive peace and a just final status agreement.”

Settlements are illegal under the Geneva Convention when the land in question was taken from a sovereign owner.

But since the Jordanian crown’s rule over Judea and Samaria was not recognized internationally, with the exception of the UK, the land Israel took in 1967 was no man’s land, available for settling. This or that Israeli government may wish to use this land as part of a peace negotiation with an enemy entity, and even to evacuate whole settlements — but not because said settlements are illegal by international law. They aren’t.

As of 1979, Israel has been settling in Judea and Samaria on “State land.”

The term was coined by then Attorney General Aharon Barak, later Israel’s most renowned Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who certainly could not be suspected of having right-wing aspirations. Barak wrote in 1979: “The presupposition in determining ownership of the land is that every land is state-owned, unless it was purchased by someone else. Therefore, unused land with no relevant documentation of ownership should be presumed to be state land.”

Despite this clear opinion of the AG, the Begin government decided that in order to preserve the rights of potential Arab owners, it would institute two additional steps before a land is declared available for acquisition: a review process, followed by a declaration of the pending acquisition.

Until the Oslo agreement, the area in question would have been acquired by this method without any problem. What changed since Oslo was the fact that now Judea and Samaria are divided into three separate areas, two of which, Areas A and B, are exclusively for Arab land acquisition, and one, Area C, is under Israeli control.

As long as the Oslo agreements are in force, land acquisition in Area C is legal, regardless of whether or not it contributes to the two state solution. You can say they do not promote the two-state idea, but you can’t say they are illegal.

In fact, the land in question has been in Jewish possession since the mid 1990s, being used for the fields of Moshav Vered Yericho, which settled nearby in 1980. In effect, those 580 acres had been in a state of review for all these years, and in all this time no Arab claimant has been found — and we trust that had there been such a claimant, Peace Now would have paid for his appeal in Israel’s Supreme Court.

The same distinction between what promotes the two-state solution and what is illegal was the background to Tuesday’s State Dept. press conference. State Dept. Spokesman John Kirby was asked about the “confiscation,” and answered, “We’re concerned about this reported expropriation of … 580 acres in the West Bank as state land, which is a significant increase over the prior announcement. This decision is, in our view, the latest step in what appears to be an ongoing process of land expropriations, settlement expansions, and legalizations of outposts that is fundamentally undermining the prospects for a two-state solution.”

Kirby continued: “As we have said before, we strongly oppose any steps that accelerate settlement expansion, which raise serious questions about Israel’s long-term intentions. And as we’ve repeatedly made clear, we continue to look to both sides to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to a two-state solution. Actions such as these do just the opposite.”

The Arab reporter who brought up the issue followed with the question, “Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said that they are going to the UN Security Council with this, and they hope to have the support of the international community. If this comes up – in the face of Israel not being deterred on these land confiscations, will you support the Palestinian effort at the United Nations if this comes up at the UN?”

Kirby’s response to that one was non-committal, but at this point Israel has no assurances that, should a PA complaint against Israeli “land seizures” be submitted to the UN Security Council, the Obama Administration would necessarily veto an anti-Israel resolution.

Ignorance of the law, innocent or willful, marks much of the popular criticism of Israel’s policy in Judea and Samaria, both inside and outside the Jewish State. And as was once noted by Herr Joseph Goebbels, lies that are repeated often enough become truths.

Allen West Warns: Look to Israel For What’ll Happen If We Let Liberals ‘WUSSIFY’ America

March 17, 2016

Allen West Warns: Look to Israel For What’ll Happen If We Let Liberals ‘WUSSIFY’ America

By Breitbart Jerusalem

16 Mar 2016

Source: Allen West Warns: Look to Israel For What’ll Happen If We Let Liberals ‘WUSSIFY’ America

David Silverman/Getty

TEL AVIV – Colonel Allen West compared President Barack Obama to Israeli left-wing NGO head Yariv Oppenheimer, saying, “Oppenheimer and Obama are the reason why we have ISIS beheading, crucifying, slaughtering, enslaving, raping, and committing acts of genocide.”

In an article published Tuesday on West’s website, the former congressman slammed Oppenheimer’s claim that Israelis are “executing” terrorists, and warned that U.S. society was also in danger of breeding “miserable creatures” like Oppenheimer.

On Thursday, Breitbart Jerusalem reported that Peace Now head Oppenheimer had blasted a stabbing victim’s act of self-defense in a terror attack on Tuesday, calling it an “extrajudicial killing.”

Despite having been stabbed multiple times, the victim, Yonatan Azarihab, managed to pull the terrorist’s knife from his own neck and use it to stab his attacker to death.

Oppenheimer also condemned police for shooting and killing the Palestinian terrorist who went on a stabbing spree in Jaffa later the same day, wounding 10 and murdering tourist and U.S. Army veteran Taylor Force.

The Palestinian Authority subsequently made use of Oppenheimer’s words, saying that Israel’s so-called “executions display the depth of the radicalism and the fascism that still rules in the circle of decision makers in Israel in their different political, judicial, military, and media institutions, and they express a wide infrastructure of violent radicalism in Israel in the shadow of the ongoing development of the radical right.”

West laid into Oppenheimer, accusing him of having a “depraved mentality and abject cowardice” for blaming the victims of terrorist attacks.

“What form of stupid would refer to an act of self-defense in killing the person who just stabbed you as a damn ‘execution?’” he wrote.

Where I come from that’s called self-defense. Does Mr. Oppenheimer prefer the Israeli citizen just stay down, bleed out, and die? I laud that man as a hero who stood up and said, you will not flee, I will pursue and kill you with the weapon you just used to try and take my life. That’s the message we need to send to Islamic jihadists.

I’m sorry, but this is exactly what the world does not need: Another doggone Islamapologist who would rather live in subjugation and mask his weakness under some banner of “peace.”

According to the ex-Lieutenant Colonel, the Oppenheimer case is indicative of a huge problem brewing in the U.S., in which liberals expect to make peace with killers.

Referring to Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, West stated, “This is the same idiocy that says we have to have a nuclear agreement with Iran and give them billions of dollars in order to avoid a confrontation.”

West expressed his concern that by giving “wussy boys” and “punks” a platform to express their opinions, Western society is cultivating an environment that shuns “real men of leadership, conviction, and courage.”

He also blasted Obama for throwing a Rose Garden celebration for the family of a deserter who served with “honor and distinction,” while sentencing another soldier – paratrooper, and first lieutenant Clint Lorance – to prison for premeditated murder for killing the enemy.

“It is this society that has demeaned strong men and created a Yariv Oppenheimer — and a Barack Obama,” he wrote.

These types of males are the reason why Parisians were gunned down. These types of males are the reason why women in Cologne, Germany were sexually assaulted and across Europe they’re being raped. These males are the reason why 14 were killed and another 21 wounded in San Bernardino and the response was “gun control.”

 

The Israel-Bashing Industry’s “Intellectuals”

March 16, 2016

The Israel-Bashing Industry’s “Intellectuals” Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, March 16, 2016

♦ These novelists hold a deep, uninformed, irrational hatred. Instead of backing the only country that gives full rights to all its citizens, they are instrumental in attacking not only Israel but the Jewish people.

♦ What is notable is that every single time, these most illustrious writers “forget” to say why Israel built those fences, checkpoints and roadblocks in the first place.

♦ Saramago, while he was visiting Ramallah, chose not to see and talk about the Israeli restaurants, malls and hotels turned into carpets of human bodies. The wholesale slaughter of Jews was the only reason Israel had to send tanks and soldiers back into the Palestinian cities after the Oslo Accords. Saramago did not mention the context; he preferred to give credence to a distorted, demonizing vision.

What is the only country about which can be said that its very existence is disputed? Clue: Not Zimbabwe, not Tuvalu, not even overrun Tibet. Which country’s boundaries, bought with blood in wars initiated by others, are challenged by all nations, who now seem determined to destroy it through boycotts, unjust defamation and purported “laws” that are applied to no other nation?

Which country fully respects the rights of women and every kind of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, notwithstanding that it is condemned at the United Nations for being “the worst violator of women’s rights” — worse than Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan?

Which country provides its own enemy with water, electricity, food and medical treatment? Its military, to avoid enemy civilian casualties, warns its enemy to evacuate buildings before attacking them, and — instead of simply carpet bombing the enemy as all other nations do, including most democracies — sends its own soldiers possibly to die in ground operations?

The country is Israel — the only country that even famous writers, intellectuals and Nobel laureates target, demonize and criminalize.

There was a time when Nobel laureates for Literature, such as the German Heinrich Böll, the French Jean-Paul Sartre and the Italian Eugenio Montale, rushed to denounce injustice. Earlier, in the name of best Europe’s values — justice, freedom and solidarity — they condemned the threats to the State of Israel’s existence.

But today, these novelists hold a deep, uninformed, irrational hatred towards the same place. Instead of backing the only country that gives full rights to all its citizens, they are instrumental in attacking not only Israel but the Jewish people. In Germany, Hitler’s Mein Kampf is the new best-seller. In Europe today, you can even find a great number of books that wipe Israel off the map. And a provincial council near Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, banned Israeli books from local libraries.

In the chorus of those who speak from journals, poems and novels, there have been a few noble exceptions. The Albanian writer Ismail Kadaré, a Muslim candidate positioned every year to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, turned down a request to boycott the tiny Jewish State. Israel, he says, faces “the threat of disappearance,” and he compared Israel to Albania under Nazi occupation. Also the author of the Harry Potter books, JK Rowling, refused to add her name to the list of Israel’s boycotters.

Their brave, solitary gestures highlight the sluggish, uninquiring conformity of the “intelligentsia’s” campaign to pile unmerited calumnies on Israel.

Worse, supposed “intellectuals” often spout raw anti-Semitism while giving a pass to the truly barbarous people among us. If the Nobel Committee had any decency, it would revoke the prizes it awarded for “Peace” to such “humanitarians” as Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat. It is painful to watch the Nobel Committee make a fool of itself year after year, and it is painful to watch these so-called intellectuals be so unaware and filled with prejudice against the people who least deserve it.

An Italian writer, Dario Fo, a laureate of the Nobel Prize for Literature, just gave an interview to the newspaper, La Repubblica. Fo, talking about the Jewish patriarch, Moses, said: “Moses was killing women and children because they worshiped idols.” Mr. Fo went on blaming “the Jews’ brutality against those who follow other religions, as it happens today.” Excuse me? Is it the Jews who are burning people alive, drowning them in cages, slitting throats or crucifying anyone for following a different religion?

Mr. Fo’s comparison is as wrong as it is ghastly. It is not the Jews who suicide-bomb Palestinian buses, cafes, wedding halls and discotheques. It is not the Jews who now try to mow down Palestinians with cars or stab them in the street. It is the reverse — and has been for years.

The daily newspaper La Stampa charged Dario Fo with “recycling anti-Semitic stereotypes.” Fo is not new at this. In the 1970s, in one of his theatrical operas, “Resistance: Italian and Palestinian people speak,” the future Nobel Prize laureate compared Nazism to Zionism and the Palestinian fedayeen terrorists to the anti-Fascist partisans.

A few days after the 9/11 attacks, Fo also said that,

“the great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty — so what is 20,000 dead in New York? Regardless of who carried out the massacre, this violence is the legitimate daughter of the culture of violence, hunger and inhumane exploitation.”

Who gave this famous writer the right to defame, earlier, not only Israel’s name but also 9/11’s victims?

Another Nobel prize-winning novelist, Mario Vargas Llosa, as well as the Pulitzer Prize winner Dave Eggers, are among a group of international novelists who will contribute to a book of essays next year about “50 years of Israeli occupation” that will be published by Harper Collins, one of the publishers that wiped Israel off the map.

The book is part of an initiative by Breaking the Silence, a non-governmental organization (NGO) which makes sweeping charges against the Israeli army “based on anonymous and unverifiable hearsay ‘testimonies.'” while refusing to disclose the names of the Israeli soldiers who “testified.” Worse, it is being funded specifically “to incriminate the IDF” (Israel Defense Forces) and, was explicitly directed by European charities to prove that Israel acted improperly. In an article entitled, “Europe to Breaking the Silence: Bring Us As Many Incriminating Testimonies As Possible,” the watchdog group NGO Monitor disclosed that:

Contrary to BtS’ claim that “the contents and opinions in this booklet do not express the position of the funders,” NGO Monitor research reveals that a number of funders made their grants conditional on the NGO obtaining a minimum number of negative “testimonies.” This contradicts BtS’ declarations and thus turns it into an organization that represents its foreign donors’ interest, severely damaging the NGO’s reliability and its ability to analyze complicated combat situations.

Are these “prestigious” writers aware of the organization’s predetermined bias which is going to fund their new book?

There is also, of course, the problem of double standards and hypocrisy. These writers did not decide to put their pen at the service of the Syria’s civil war victims or the Christians and Yazidi who are suffering a genocide in Iraq. No, these writers targeted Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, and its supposed “occupation” — which they fail to disclose was backed by the Palestinians themselves in the Oslo II Accord of 1995, Chapter 3, Article XVII Jurisdiction [1], which in fact turned the Palestinian people into the most protected Arab population in the entire Middle East. Go to Ramallah and Jenin and you will see the difference between how they live compared to the people living in Aleppo, Sana’a and Mosul.

The most prolific novelists in the Israel-Bashing Industry are, sadly, the British. “Sadly,” especially as Iran has within the last month raised the bounty offered on the head of a British citizen, Salman Rushdie, by another $600,000, in addition to the $3 million issued by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. That brings the incentive for murdering a novelist to roughly $4 million. About that, the British government has been shamefully silent. The only condemnation so far seems to have come from the Iranian journalist, Amir Taheri, the British journalist, Douglas Murray and from PEN.

Another “intellectual,” John Berger, a Booker Prize winner, called for artists to decline being published by Israeli publishers and to undertake a boycott of the Jewish State. Harold Pinter, the late Nobel Laureate playwright, has gone so far as to declare Israel “the central factor in world unrest,” presumably forgetting about Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan. Showing how thin is the line separating criticism and anti-Semitism, Tom Paulin, poet, essayist and academic at Oxford, said Jewish “settlers” in Israel “should be shot dead.” A Scottish National Poet, Liz Lochhead, also joined a group calling for the boycott of Israel.

Dozens of the world’s literary stars, including Nobel laureates in literature such as J. M. Coetzee, Herta Mueller, Orhan Pamuk and the late Irish poet Seamus Heaney, added their names to a petition against Israel’s “occupation’s giant, cruel hand.” What is notable is that every single time, these most illustrious writers “forget” to say why Israel built those fences, checkpoints and roadblocks in the first place.

Donald Trump wants to build a wall with Mexico, the Arab sheikhdoms are closing the border with Oman, Spain built fences to keep out Moroccans, India is walling off Bangladesh, South and North Korea share a fortified border, Cyprus is divided by walls and Belfast is a fenced city of barriers.

But only Israel’s fence — built for defensive, humanitarian reasons, merely not to get blown up — is condemned by the International Court of Justice and receives round-the-clock coverage on CNN and front page stories in the New York Times. Why? Because the security barrier that saves lives was perverted by unjust people into an unjust barrier, with no mention of what happened to Israelis before that fence was put up. To paraphrase attorney Alan Dershowitz: If you made a fair and objective list of all the countries in the world that comply with human rights, from best to worst, Israel would have to be near the top, among the best.

One of the most chilling accusations against Israel has come from a northern European writer, Jostein Gaarder, an ostensible humanitarian, whose book, “Sophie’s World,” was translated into 53 languages, and with 26 million copies sold. Penning an article in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, Gaarder wrote:

“If the entire Israeli nation should fall … and part of the population must flee to another Diaspora, then we say: may their surroundings stay calm and show them mercy. Shoot not at the fugitives! Take not aim at them! They are vulnerable now — like snails without shells! … Give the Israeli refugees shelter; give them milk and honey!”

Gaarder envisages the expulsion of the entire Jewish people from their land, and again dependent on European charity — in recent years not exactly a commodity in great supply.

Israel has been humiliated also by a German writer and Nobel Prize for Literature, Günter Grass, who published a poem in several European newspapers, in which he treated Israel as the purveyor of all ills and the instigator of every type of disorder. According to Mr. Grass, it is Israel that threatens Iran with a nuclear genocide, not the reverse.

This sanctimony should not have come from that writer: Grass, in fact, served in Nazi Germany’s armed SS force and defined East Germany’s Communism “a comfortable dictatorship.”

After a visit in the Palestinian Authority’s de facto capital, Ramallah, during the Second Intifada, after there were about 1,500 Jewish dead from terrorism, another winner of Nobel Prize for Literature, José Saramago, stated that the Israeli blockade of Ramallah was “in the spirit of Auschwitz” and “this place is being turned into a concentration camp.” A year later, Saramago commented that the Jewish people no longer deserve “the sympathy for the suffering they went through during the Holocaust.”

1512Nobel laureates who demonized: German novelist Günter Grass (left), who served in Nazi Germany’s armed SS force, claimed that Israel threatens Iran with a nuclear genocide. Portuguese novelist José Saramago (right), gave credence to a distorted, demonizing vision that culminated in the perverse comparison between Hitler and Israel.

Mr. Saramago, while he was visiting Ramallah, chose not to see and talk about the Israeli restaurants, shopping malls and hotels turned into carpets of human bodies. The wholesale slaughter of Jews was the only reason Israel had to send tanks and soldiers back into the Palestinian cities after the Oslo Accords. Saramago did not mention the context; he preferred to give credence to a distorted, demonizing vision that culminated in the perverse comparison between Hitler and Israel, and the transformation of the Jewish State — the historical home of the Jews for nearly 4000 years, and lately the only sanctuary not to turn away Jews being persecuted or rounded up for death — into an “imperialist base.”

It is by repeating lies that Europe even accepted the big Mohammed al-Dura lie: a boy supposedly riddled to death with Israeli bullets, but there was not one drop of blood! Not only that, but after he was dead, he moved his hand to look out. Quite a feat. For a time, the lie even became the favorite table conversation for Europe’s upper classes.

This is how millions of Europeans have been persuaded to see Israel as the aggressor and the Palestinian terrorists as the victims. They read the inverted, Orwellian revision of history every day on the front pages. Look at what is happening now during this “Third Intifada”: it is filled with knives, stabbings of Jews, even charts on the internet showing where to stab a Jew to do the most damage. The many dead Israeli civilians and soldiers have totally disappeared from the television screen, but when Israeli soldiers shoot a Palestinian in the process of stabbing a Jew, they are labelled by a corrupt and racist media as “illegal executioners.”

What would these supposed intellectuals do if citizens were being stabbed in London, Rome or Berlin? The “intellectuals” and the media seem to be trying to make the Jews unable to defend themselves. The “intellectuals” and the media are preaching for Israel’s destruction.

_____________________

[1] From the Oslo II Accord — Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, September 28, 1995, CHAPTER 3 – LEGAL AFFAIRS, ARTICLE XVII
 — Jurisdiction:

4. a. Israel, through its military government, has the authority over areas that are not under the territorial jurisdiction of the Council, powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council and Israelis.

b. To this end, the Israeli military government shall retain the necessary legislative, judicial and executive powers and responsibilities, in accordance with international law. This provision shall not derogate from Israel’s applicable legislation over Israelis in personam.

Trump and the Left’s Accusations of Fascism

March 16, 2016

Trump and the Left’s Accusations of Fascism, Front Page MagazineBruce Thornton, March 16, 2016

trump

Donald Trump’s success in the primaries and his rhetoric have sparked troubled meditations about an awakening of fascist impulses among his supporters. Bret Stephens has drawn an analogy with the Thirties, “the last dark age of Western politics,” and compared Trump to Benito Mussolini. On the left, Dana Milbank, in a column titled “Trump Flirts with Fascism,” wrote about a campaign rally at which Trump was “leading supporters in what looked very much like a fascist salute,” a scene New York Times house-conservative David Brooks linked to the Nuremberg party rallies.

Much of the rhetoric that links Trump to fascism or Nazism is merely the stale ad Hitlerum fallacy used by progressives to demonize the candidate. They did the same thing when they called George W. Bush “Bushitler.” This slur reflects the hoary leftist dogma that conservatives at heart are repressed xenophobes and knuckle-dragging racists lusting for a messianic leader to restore their lost “white privilege” and punish their minority, immigrant, and feminist enemies. As such, the attack on Trump is nothing new or unexpected from a progressive ideology whose totalitarian inclinations have always had much more in common with fascism than conservatism does.

What Auden called the “low dishonest decade” of the Thirties, however, is indeed instructive for our predicament today, but not because of any danger of a fascist party taking root in modern America. Communism was (and in some ways still is) vastly more successful at infiltrating and shaping American political, cultural, and educational institutions than fascism ever was. But the same cultural pathologies that enabled both fascist and Nazi aggression still afflict us today. These pathologies and their malign effects are more important than the reasons for Trump’s popularity–– anger at elites, economic stagnation, and anti-immigrant passions–– that supposedly echo the “waves of fear and anger” of Auden’s Thirties.

The most important delusion of the Thirties still active today is the idealistic internationalism that had developed over the previous century. A world shrunk by new communication and transportation technologies and linked by global trade, internationalists argued, meant nations and peoples were becoming more alike. Thus they desired the same prosperity, political freedom, human rights, and peace that the West enjoyed. Interstate relations now should be based on this “harmony of interests,” and managed by non-lethal transnational organizations rather than by force. Covenants and treaties like the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and institutions like the League of Nations and the International Court of Arbitration, could peacefully resolve conflicts among nations through diplomatic engagement, negotiation, and appeasement.

The Preamble to the First Hague Convention (1899) captures the idealism that would compromise foreign policy in the Thirties. The Convention’s aims were “the maintenance of the general peace” and “the friendly settlement of international disputes.” This goal was based on the “solidarity which unites the member of the society of civilized nations” and their shared desire for “extending the empire of law and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice.” Two decades later, the monstrous death and destruction of World War I should have shattered the delusion of such “solidarity” existing even among the “civilized nations.” Despite that gruesome lesson, Europe doubled down and created the League of Nations, which failed to stop the serial aggression that culminated in World War II.

But the League wasn’t the only manifestation of naïve internationalism. The Locarno Treaty of 1925 welcomed Germany back into the community of nations with a seat on the League of Nations council. Nobel Peace prizes, and wish-fulfilling headlines like the New York Times’ “France and Germany Bar War Forever,” were all that resulted. The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 “condemn[ed] recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce[d] it as an instrument of national policy” in interstate relations. The signing powers asserted that “the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts . . . shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

All the future Axis Powers signed the treaty, and they all soon shredded these “parchment barriers.” In the next few years, Japan invaded Manchuria, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in gross violation of the Versailles Treaty, and Italy invaded Ethiopia. By the time Germany annexed Austria, and Neville Chamberlain’s faith in negotiation and appeasement handed Czechoslovakia to Hitler, all these treaties and conventions and conferences were dead letters, and the League of Nations was exposed as a “cockpit in the tower of Babel,” as Churchill suggested after the First World War.

However, such graphic and costly evidence showing the folly of “covenants without the sword,” as Hobbes put it, did not discredit this dangerous idealism over the following decades. Indeed, it lies behind the disasters of Obama’s foreign policy. Just consider his “outreach” to our enemies, his acknowledgement of our own “imperfections,” his reliance on toothless U.N. Security Council Resolutions, his preference for non-lethal economic sanctions to pressure adversaries, and his belief that negotiated settlements and agreements can achieve peace and good relations even with our fiercest enemies. All reflect the same failure to recognize that our adversaries in fact do not sincerely want to reach an agreement, for the simple reason they are not in fact “just like us,” and so they do not want peace and prosperity and good relations with their neighbors and the “world community.”

The catalogue of Obama’s failures is long and depressing. The “reset” with Russia and promise of “flexibility,” the empty “red line” threats against Bashar al Assad, the arrogant dismissal of a metastasizing ISIS as a “jayvee” outfit, the alienation of allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, the cultivation of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, the ill-conceived overthrow of Muammar Ghaddafi, and the rhetoric of guilt and self-abasement are just the most noteworthy failures. The nuclear deal with Iran, of course, is the premier monument to this folly. Yet despite the increasing evidence of its futility­­––Iran’s saber-rattling in the Gulf, capture of U.S. military personnel, genocidal rhetoric, and testing of missiles in blatant violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution–– Obama still clings to this internationalist delusion.

A recent article in The Atlantic on Obama’s foreign policy shows, despite his protestations of hardheaded “realism,” that he has not learned from his failures. Thus he still thinks that the vigorous use of force is usually an unnecessary and dangerous mistake, and that verbal persuasion and diplomatic engagement are more effective. He also still believes that “multilateralism regulates [U.S.] hubris” of the sort that George W. Bush showed when he recklessly invaded Iraq, and that American foreign policy has frequently displayed.

Obama’s delusional faith in rhetoric, especially his own, comes through in his rationale for the infamous 2009 Cairo speech: “I was hoping that my speech could trigger a discussion, could create space for Muslims to address the real problems they are confronting—problems of governance, and the fact that some currents of Islam have not gone through a reformation that would help people adapt their religious doctrines to modernity.” The idea that Obama’s mere words could start a “discussion” that would transform 14-century-old religious doctrines fundamentally inimical to liberal democracy, human rights, and all the other Western goods we live by, is a fantasy. Obama’s self-regard recalls Neville Chamberlain’s boast after his meeting with Hitler at Bad Godesberg that he “had established some degree of personal influence with Herr Hitler.”

Or consider Obama’s take on Vladimir Putin:

He understands that Russia’s overall position in the world is significantly diminished. And the fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn’t suddenly make him a player. You don’t see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape the agenda. For that matter, there’s not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any of the issues that are important.

A “player,” in Obama’s foreign policy universe, is a leader who uses “smart power” like diplomacy and negotiated deals, and recognizes that the use of force will backfire and lead to costly “quagmires.” As Secretary of State John Kerry suggested, Putin is using outdated “19th century” instruments of foreign policy like military force in a world that presumably has evolved beyond it.

In contrast, a genuine “player,” as Obama fancies himself, attends summits and conferences, such as the useless climate change conference in Paris, and “sets the agenda.” And like his rationale for the Cairo speech, as the leader of the world’s greatest power, his rhetoric alone can be a force for change. Thus just saying that Syria’s “Assad must go,” while doing nothing to achieve that end, is still useful, and refusing to honestly identify the traditional Islamic foundations of modern jihadism will build good will among Muslims and turn them against the “extremists.”

Meanwhile, Putin and Iran fight and bomb and kill in Syria and Iraq, and now they are the big “players” in a region that the U.S. once dominated, but that now serves the interests of Russia and Iran. I’m reminded of Demosthenes’ scolding of the Athenians for refusing to confront Phillip II of Macedon: “Where either side devotes its time and energy, there it succeeds the better––Phillip in action, but you in argument.”

In other words, for Obama as for Chamberlain, appeasing words rather than forceful deeds are the key to foreign policy––precisely the belief that led England to disastrously underestimate Hitler until it was too late. And that same belief has turned the Middle East into a Darwinian jungle of clashing tribes, sects, and nations.

Obama wraps his foreign policy of retreat in claims to “realist” calculations of America’s security and genuine interests, and buttresses his claim by citing his strategically inconsequential drone killings. But such rhetoric hides an unwillingness to risk consequential action and pay its political costs. And it reflects a commitment to the internationalist idealism that gives diplomatic verbal processes an almost magical power to transform inveterate enemies into helpful partners. Europe tried that in the Thirties, and it led to disaster. That’s a much more important lesson from that sorry decade’s history than the lurid fantasies about fascism coming to America on the wings of Trump’s rhetoric.